You might think I mean far away, as in across the country, but I'm thinking they are farther away than that. They have separated their thinking from the rest of the country, so they might as well be on Mars.
Once I saw the byline, that the justices thought that the needs of the city to revitalize an area, even if the area is going to be owned and run by a private company, outweighed the rights of the average homeowner, I said to myself, 'I bet I could name the justices who were for and against that decision.'
And I was right: Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
Stevens is beginning to make me sick to my stomach. Where's the limit on government power? Why is tax revenue more important than individual rights?
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.You think that the more liberal justices would be more in line with the common man, and against the tyranny of the wealthy developer. Not so.
Orin Kerr says 'No word on whether they simultaneously announced the seizure to be in "interstate commerce." But I would check the footnotes just in case.'
If you have the time, the opinions are here.
No comments:
Post a Comment